State v. Sarrabea, 12–1013.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–1013.,12–1013. |
| Citation | 157 So.3d 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Alexis SARRABEA. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Chad Ikerd, 15th Judicial District Public Defender's Office, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Alexis Sarrabea.
Colin Clark, Assistant Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, Mark Garber, Assistant District Attorney, Lafayette, LA, for Appellee, State of Louisiana.
Court composed of Judges SYLVIA R. COOKS, JOHN D. SAUNDERS and JIMMIE C. PETERS.
Alexis Sarrabea (Defendant), was charged by bill of information with driving without documentation demonstrating his lawful presence in the United States, a violation of La.R.S. 14:100.13, which provides:
Defendant, a thirty year-old man, is a Spanish speaking person who does not speak or read English. The record does not contain any other facts concerning Defendant such as his country of origin.1 The facts of record only indicate the State of Louisiana alleges it could prove Defendant is either “an alien student or an (sic ) non-resident alien,” who operated a motor vehicle in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, “without documentation demonstrating that he was lawfully present in the United States.” The record does not provide any factual basis for the police approaching Defendant, nor any basis which would establish probable cause for arresting Defendant. Additionally, the record does not provide any information on Defendant's immigration status other than to indicate Defendant was involved in the federal immigration process at the time of his arrest and at the time he entered his plea.
Defendant first entered a plea of not guilty, but, after spending more than three months in the parish jail, Defendant changed his plea to a no-contest plea. The State agreed in exchange for Defendant's no-contest guilty plea, it would recommend he receive a sentence of three months with credit for time served. Defense counsel stated on the record Defendant was entering his plea reserving his right to appeal several issues of law concerning the constitutionality of the state statute, and/or the constitutionality of applying the statute under which he was prosecuted, expressly stating “[I]t's in his best interest at this point to accept the plea so that he can move on in the Federal immigration process.”
Defendant specifically asserted at the guilty plea hearing that La.R.S. 14:100.13 is preempted by federal law; it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; it is over-broad and vague; and it potentially violates the provisions of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Defendant was sentenced to three months in the parish jail, with credit for time served, concurrent with any other sentence he was serving at the time.
On appeal, Defendant asserts the following assignment of error and separates the assignment into four separate issues:
Defendant entered a guilty plea preserving his right to seek review of specified issues2 pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). In Crosby, the court held in pertinent part:
We note in the record Defendant did not file a motion to quash the bill of information on the basis that the statute was unconstitutional, thus the trial court made no ruling on this issue. Generally, Crosby pleas allow a defendant to
preserve his right to seek review of a trial court's pretrial rulings. Although in this case there was no pretrial ruling on this issue, Defendant expressly preserved his right to raise several issues regarding the constitutionality of this statute on appeal, and it is therefore properly before this court on appeal. In State v. Flores, 27,736, p. 3 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 646, 649, the court explained in pertinent part:
Attacks on the constitutionality of a statute may be made by two methods. The statute itself can be challenged, or the state's application to a particular defendant can be the basis of the attack. Constitutional challenges may be based upon vagueness. State v. Gamberella, [633 So.2d 595 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 94–0200 (La.6/24/94), 640 So.2d 1341 ] supra; State v. Walker, 26,026 (La.App.2d Cir.5/4/94), 637 So.2d 583, writ denied, 94–1369 (La.9/30/94), 642 So.2d 868.
In this case, Defendant challenges the statute itself. Additionally, in Flores, 669 So.2d at 649, the court explained in pertinent part:
Initially, we note Defendant asserts on appeal the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. However, Defendant did not file a motion to suppress on this ground in the trial court, and did not preserve his challenge of this issue when he
entered his guilty plea. Defendant therefore waived the issue of probable cause for his arrest as a basis to attack his conviction, and we are precluded from reviewing this issue on appeal. Next, Defendant contends the trial court erred in entering a judgment convicting him for operating a vehicle without documentation of lawful presence because the State of Louisiana does not have the authority to require drivers to prove, with documentation acceptable to state authorities, they are lawfully present in the United States. Further, he contends the courts of this State lack subject matter jurisdiction over the status of aliens.
Defendant argues La.R.S. 14:100.13 is an unconstitutional attempt to preempt federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial